Getting back into the groove and back into my LONG puzzle statements. What? I always turn these into stories.

Sam wanted to meet Elliot, but Elliot did not want to meet Sam. Sam had something for Elliot but Elliot didn’t want it. After they met, Elliot was unhappy and hoped never to meet up with Sam again.

The second time they met, Elliot still didn’t want to meet Sam. For his part, Sam hadn’t tried to meet Elliot again and, in fact, had 11,000 reasons to think he wouldn’t. Once again Sam had something for Elliot, which Elliot still didn’t want.

Yet this time they met, they both laughed and shared quite a merry exchange. However, Elliot still hopes never to meet up with Sam again.

was Elliott scared of Sam? Nodid he not want to meet him because it was him Yope…or because of the thing he brought? But more this. the first time? the second time? Both times.

RedwineWe established that Elliot has a sort of trouble with the law. YesIs Elliot a victim of a crime? NoIs Elliot sued? NoIs Elliot accused of something? NoDid Elliot do something immoral, not necessarily a crime? No

Brief Recap/Refocus:The confusion about Elliot’s action is coming from these two questions. Kayleetonkslupin asked: “Is Elliot in some sort of trouble with the law?” YesBalin clarified: “But Elliot is a criminal, correct?” DOYD, so Yope

Seeing your comments in the chatroom, can you please insert [LTPF list of possible answers to this puzzle] ? :-) Sure thing…OH, wait…

Was Elliot accused of the crime by the state? Yes (if it would be called "the state" in UK and New Zealand)By a private individual? NoRelevant? Yes, a littleWas he in a trial at the time of the first meeting? The second? No to both

Was he ever convicted? Yes, though this would be an odd way to put itRelevant the time between the first and the second meeting? Yes, in general (the specific time is not relevant)

Did they first meet in London and the second time in Auckland? Technically it was outside London and then Wellington, but the exact locations aren’t relvant.The other way around? See above.

The two things: were they the same physical things No, not literally the same oneor the same kind of things Yes(as in different books as opposed to the physical same copy of a book)? But not in the way you describe in this example

The 11000 reasons -- exactly 11000, Yes, close enough to exactor just a metaphor for "many reasons"? NoIf the former: 11000 units of currency? 11000 animals? No to both

RbrumaSo he was in trouble with the law, Yesbut not actually a criminal (DOYD), Yes, I don't think any of you would call him a criminalnot sued,Correctnot accused of anything, correct? No accusing needed. He did it.

Are we excluding here criminal law? I was going to say yes, the Internet says I'm wrong. Doens't matter anyway - see the last Qs below.Had he a problem with the civil law (inheritances, etc)? The law of torts? Commerce law? Administrative law? Constitutional law? Private international law? So no to these

BalinWas Elliot's "crime" a common offense? YESSomething like jaywalking? Not this...see below

TwilightseekerDid Elliot have some kind of traffic violation? YES!!

*twirls you* Your fellow puzzlers thank you. A traffic violation is breaking a law (thus committing a crime, thus "criminal" in the technical sense) but who would call someone who did this a criminal? Yes?

Does the "11,000" refer to a price as well? a fee? a measurement of time? space (distance, width, length, weight, etc.)? Distance

Rbruma11000... miles? YesLike the distance between UK and New Zealand? Yes!Did he get the first ticket in one country and the second in the other, and was surprised to see the same police officer in both cases? YES!!

The first time they met, Sam stopped Elliot outside London and issued him a speeding ticket. Much to both men’s surprise, two years later, Sam again stopped Elliot and gave him a speeding ticket…in Wellington, New Zealand!

Drawn from the news blurb below…

New Zealand traffic officer Andy Flitton cited an unnamed speeder recently for the second time in two years -- 11,000 miles from the spot of the first ticket. Flitton had moved from the U.K. to New Zealand, and unknown to him, the motorist himself had relocated to New Zealand last year. When Flitton stopped the man in Wellington in December 2010, the motorist recognized Flitton as the one who had ticketed him on the A5 highway near London. [Agence France-Presse, 12-7-2010]

Thanks to all who played! Hopefully, it was a fun journey getting to the solution.